X-rays and other x-ray image analysis are important diagnostic tools, particularly for bone related conditions. Currently available techniques for the noninvasive assessment of the skeleton for the diagnosis of osteoporosis or the evaluation of an increased risk of fracture include dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (Eastell et al. (1998) New Engl J. Med 338:736-746); quantitative computed tomography (QCT) (Cann (1988) Radiology 166:509-522); peripheral DXA (pDXA) (Patel et al. (1999) J Clin Densitom 2:397-401); peripheral QCT (pQCT) (Gluer et. al. (1997) Semin Nucl Med 27:229-247); x-ray image absorptiometry (RA) (Gluer et. al. (1997) Semin Nucl Med 27:229-247); and quantitative ultrasound (QUS) (Njeh et al. “Quantitative Ultrasound: Assessment of Osteoporosis and Bone Status” 1999, Martin-Dunitz, London England; U.S. Pat. No. 6,077,224, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety). (See, also, WO 9945845; WO 99/08597; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,246,745).
DXA of the spine and hip has established itself as the most widely used method of measuring BMD. Tothill, P. and D. W. Pye, (1992) Br J Radiol 65:807-813. The fundamental principle behind DXA is the measurement of the transmission through the body of x-rays of 2 different photon energy levels. Because of the dependence of the attenuation coefficient on the atomic number and photon energy, measurement of the transmission factors at 2 energy levels enables the area densities (i.e., the mass per unit projected area) of 2 different types of tissue to be inferred. In DXA scans, these are taken to be bone mineral (hydroxyapatite) and soft tissue, respectively. However, it is widely recognized that the accuracy of DXA scans is limited by the variable composition of soft tissue. Because of its higher hydrogen content, the attenuation coefficient of fat is different from that of lean tissue. Differences in the soft tissue composition in the path of the x-ray beam through bone compared with the adjacent soft tissue reference area cause errors in the BMD measurements, according to the results of several studies. Tothill, P. and D. W. Pye, (1992) Br J Radiol, 65:807-813; Svendsen, O., (1995) J Bone Min Res 10:868-873. Moreover, DXA systems are large and expensive, ranging in price between $75,000 and $150,000.
Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) is usually applied to measure the trabecular bone in the vertebral bodies. Cann (1988) Radiology 166:509-522. QCT studies are generally performed using a single kV setting (single-energy QCT), when the principal source of error is the variable composition of the bone marrow. However, a dual-kV scan (dual-energy QCT) is also possible. This reduces the accuracy errors but at the price of poorer precision and higher radiation dose. Like DXA, however, QCT are very expensive and the use of such equipment is currently limited to few research centers.
Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is a technique for measuring the peripheral skeleton. Njeh et al. (1997) Osteoporosis Int 7:7-22; Njeh et al. Quantitative Ultrasound: Assessment of Osteoporosis and Bone Status. 1999, London, England: Martin Dunitz. There is a wide variety of equipment available, with most devices using the heel as the measurement site. A sonographic pulse passing through bone is strongly attenuated as the signal is scattered and absorbed by trabeculae. Attenuation increases linearly with frequency, and the slope of the relationship is referred to as broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA; units: dB/MHz). BUA is reduced in patients with osteoporosis because there are fewer trabeculae in the calcaneus to attenuate the signal. In addition to BUA, most QUS systems also measure the speed of sound (SOS) in the heel by dividing the distance between the sonographic transducers by the propagation time (units: m/s). SOS values are reduced in patients with osteoporosis because with the loss of mineralized bone, the elastic modulus of the bone is decreased. There remain, however, several limitations to QUS measurements. The success of QUS in predicting fracture risk in younger patients remains uncertain. Another difficulty with QUS measurements is that they are not readily encompassed within the WHO definitions of osteoporosis and osteopenia. Moreover, no intervention thresholds have been developed. Thus, measurements cannot be used for therapeutic decision-making.
There are also several technical limitations to QUS. Many devices use a foot support that positions the patient's heel between fixed transducers. Thus, the measurement site is not readily adapted to different sizes and shapes of the calcaneus, and the exact anatomic site of the measurement varies from patient to patient. It is generally agreed that the relatively poor precision of QUS measurements makes most devices unsuitable for monitoring patients' response to treatment. Gluer (1997) J Bone Min Res 12:1280-1288.
Radiographic absorptiometry (RA) is a technique that was developed many years ago for assessing bone density in the hand, but the technique has recently attracted renewed interest. Gluer et al. (1997) Semin Nucl Med 27:229-247. With this technique, BMD is measured in the phalanges. The principal disadvantage of RA of the hand is the relative lack of high turnover trabecular bone. For this reason, RA of the hand has limited sensitivity in detecting osteoporosis and is not very useful for monitoring therapy-induced changes.
Peripheral x-ray absorptiometry methods such as those described above are substantially cheaper than DXA and QCT with system prices ranging between $15,000 and $35,000. However, epidemiologic studies have shown that the discriminatory ability of peripheral BMD measurements to predict spine and hip fractures is lower than when spine and hip BMD measurements are used. Cummings et al. (1993) Lancet 341:72-75; Marshall et al. (1996) Br Med J 312:1254-1259. The main reason for this is the lack of trabecular bone at the measurement sites used with these techniques. In addition, changes in forearm or hand BMD in response to hormone replacement therapy, bisphosphonates, and selective estrogen receptor modulators are relatively small, making such measurements less suitable than measurements of principally trabecular bone for monitoring response to treatment. Faulkner (1998) J Clin Densitom 1:279-285; Hoskings et al. (1998) N Engl J Med 338:485-492. Although attempts to obtain information on bone mineral density from dental x-rays have been attempted (See, e.g., Shrout et al. (2000) J. Periodonol. 71:335-340; Verhoeven et al. (1998) Clin Oral Implants Res 9(5):333-342), these have not provided accurate and reliable results.
Furthermore, current methods and devices do not generally take into account bone structure analyses. See, e.g., Ruttimann et al. (1992) Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 74:98-110; Southard & Southard (1992) Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 73:751-9; White & Rudolph, (1999) Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 88:628-35.
Thus, although a number of devices and methods exist for evaluating bone density, there are a number of limitations on such devices and methods. Consequently, the inventors have recognized the need, among other things, to provide methods and compositions that result in the ability to obtain accurate bone mineral density and bone structure information from x-ray images and data.